|
Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit:
No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things.
There, I fixed it.
Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world.
|
On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: Show nested quote +No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world.
I guess you don't realize that it already is a part of government administration and it's a pathetic failure. Whatever your government does with power does not equal what the US government will do with the same power. It has nothing to do with conservative thinking, the government has already been running SS for decades and it is a failure. It is a government that doesn't give a fuck about anything but it's own wealth and power, that is the problem.
|
On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: Show nested quote +No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world.
This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification.
User was warned for this post
User was warned for this post
|
On February 02 2011 09:10 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 08:56 shdymlkman wrote:On February 02 2011 08:43 mcc wrote:On February 02 2011 08:25 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 08:24 acker wrote:On February 02 2011 08:19 Treemonkeys wrote:
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance. The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture. Then dispute what I have said. Where do US dollars come from? You are making too much fuss, so here : they are (as all other currencies in the world) printed/minted. So now that we have this trivial question answered was there a point ? The Fed can print money whenever it wants but if you try to do it, you are taken to jail. Since it is illegal to use currencies other than the state approved one, your debt enslavement is guaranteed. I am surprised at the amount of boot-licking and stockholm syndrome in this thread and even more surprised at how long Treemonkeys has tolerated it. You realize that by printing dollars, they LOWER the value of the dollar and that it gets tracked like a godamned hawk, right? Its not money that's just popping out of thin air, that they just hand to themselves and pay off the mortgage on their 17th mansion in the Bahamas.
Sorry, I have this weird hangup about having the value of my money lowered by strangers at their whim. It's weird, I know.
But as long as they're keeping track of how they destroy the dollar "like a hawk" it's okay.
|
I would pay them. Although the concept of voluntary tax is silly.
Taxes are great. The scourge of our times is this ridiculous hate of taxes. Taxes is the reason why a country has good roads, good trains, good schools, good hospitals. I don't mind paying a lot of taxes. And if I was very rich, I wouldn't mind paying much more taxes than people who are in trouble.
So, yeah. I prefer living in a country where there are good roads, good trains, good hospitals, good schools, etc etc... like France, and earn a little less, than a a country like England where you earn more because taxes have been cut to an incredible extend theses last 40 years, but where everything sucks. English trains suck, english roads suck, english public schools suck, english university are obscenely expensive, english hospital is the worst ever, etc etc etc...
When the tube in London stops every fucking 5 minutes and that it cost you 4 pounds for a damn ticket (6 dollars), I WISH I could pay taxes and travel properly.
|
Isn't the entire point of a tax to be a tax? Isn't a "voluntary" tax just considered donations, or charity?
I wouldn't pay. Why give money I don't have to people who have too much already? (I don't like being taxed, btw)
|
On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: Show nested quote +No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world.
I really don't see how the government handling the construction of public roads is even remotely similar to them planning out my retirement without my consent. Maybe thats just because I'm a retarded American who btw isn't really conservative. I have a romanticized view of Enlightenment thinking. Wtf ever happened to that in Europe? Have you even heard of that era? It's like that entire century was just deleted from history on your entire continent. The western world is falling because they removed their foundation.
|
On February 02 2011 08:06 thebigdonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 06:48 barkles wrote:On February 02 2011 06:31 thebigdonkey wrote:On February 02 2011 06:18 Haemonculus wrote:On February 02 2011 05:59 barkles wrote: No one in their right mind would voluntarily pay for social security. Why wouldn't you just take that money and put it in an investment portfolio and make a better return than what the govt will give you?
There are also significant concerns about the financial solvency of these programs. I'll preface this by saying that I am not an economist in any way. I have only a basic grasp of how the stock market works. I sort of feel that I understand the general theory of it, but honestly I haven't a goddamn clue what happens on wall street or in any other major stock market. However, to move onto my point, can *everyone* really make an "investment portfolio" that's going to pay off? Can you really guarantee that a bunch of stock is going to stay solid and continue growing until you're ready to retire? If it was as easy as "yeah just go get a pro portfolio u noob", wouldn't more people do that? One of my older cousins is an economist, and works whatever job it is that economists do. He lost a *shitload* of money in the 2000 or so market crash, and he's told me quite plainly that he'll likely never get back all the money he'd put into it. My father tells a similar story. So even the experts can mess up and make mistakes. I find it a bit unrealistic to assume that everyone and their mother can make sound financial decisions and that every investment portfolio is magically guaranteed success over a very long period of time. Secondly, isn't a 401k plan quite similar to social security? Sort of a privatized version of such? Your employer takes a chunk of your paycheck, puts it off into a magical account somewhere, and you get it back when you retire. I know this system really appeals to many Americans, simply because we're so goddamn hard for the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality, and value individual success highly over community success. Lots of Americans hate the idea that their tax dollars go to anyone but themselves. But what about those poor bastards who had 401ks with Enron? People can still get screwed over. A government run 401k type policy is basically what Social Security is trying to accomplish, no? Finally, do you *really* think that if people were given the option to stop paying SS taxes, that they'd all just go and invest it soundly? They wouldn't splurge on a new TV instead? (Or more realistically in the current economy, pay off that late utility bill. ) A lot of people just plain cannot realistically plan for the future. I know I'm guilty of this for sure. But here we are, a bunch of (and I'm going to generalize here), well educated, mostly wealthy or at least middle class, folks with the leisure time available to spend having philosophical and economic debates on TL. There's a *lot* of people out there who never had the same opportunities that you or I did. Excellent excellent post. The idea that we can all get rich together on the stock market with our 401k's is a myth. As often as not, when you make money on the market, someone else is losing money to facillitate that. There is a general perception that everyone lost tons of money when the housing bubble burst. However, there was a small group of shrewd individuals who spotted the trend before everyone else and bet against it and made BILLIONS when the subprime mortgage market went belly up (these people were the ones that AIG owed so much money to). I am not criticizing these people at all, they made brilliant decisions to go against the grain and momentum of the market and they were rewarded appropriately for their risk. Anyway, the moral of the story is, in order to make a buck, someone else is losing a buck. Absolutely and totally incorrect. The economy is NOT a zero-sum game. If this was true, economic growth would never occur. If you have no economic knowledge whatsoever, you should not be making any claims in such forum topics as these. First of all, I was not speaking of the economy as a whole, I was speaking of investment markets. Second of all, I never said it was zero sum. I said "as often as not". I referred to a very specific example where it WAS zero sum (read The Greatest Trade Ever Made or The Big Short for more details..this is what I was referring to when I said 'the moral of the story is'. If you like I can educate you on how collaterallzied debt obligations and credit default swaps worked in relation to the subprime mortgage market.), but in no way was I insinuating that in every transaction, every dollar gained is a dollar lost for someone else. Recent history suggests that by following the herd mentality, you can compound your money eventually in the stock market. But you'll never get extraordinarily rich off of a 401k managed by Fidelity (or any similar programs with other institutions) and you will always feel the bumps in the market AND as they like to say in their commercials, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. It's entirely possible that Average Joe with his 401k with Fidelity could lose 80% of his portfolio value but at the same time Ted Hedge Fund Manager could see 200% increases because he shorted everything. The bottom line is, the average person is a bottom feeder in the market, we get the gains last and the losses first.
Okay. First of all, I very much doubt that you could teach me anything about CDOs and credit default swaps that I don't already know. Unless you happen to be an economics/finance PhD that is. Second of all, if you think that the stock market is "as often as not" giving net zero returns, then I don't think I have anything more to say to you. Look at a chart of stock market performance (the Dow will do fine) over the last twenty years. The net return is not zero. However, I will assume that you have a small shred of intelligence and ignore that statement.
Lastly, was anyone here talking about getting rich with Social Security? You seem to be obsessed with getting filthy rich, but all I (or what seems to be everyone else for that matter) have been talking about is comparing the meager returns obtained through SS with the better results that one can obtain through individual investment.
In fact, you're even incorrect about calling your "specific cases" zero-sum. If you are referring to individuals making a fortune through short-selling stocks they think are about to tank, then it is only zero sum if every cent that is lost by an investor holding that stock when it tanks is exactly made by someone short-selling it.The odds against this are astronomical, due to the huge number of shares that most companies issue and the constraints that brokers face when constructing hedging portfolios.
Actually, I changed my mind: please tell me what you think you know about the sub-prime crisis. It should be entertaining at least.
|
On February 02 2011 16:43 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification.
Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please?
With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this:
The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really)
Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes).
|
I probably would, but I dont want it to be. I want everyone to have a decent life. Don't see what's so wrong about that. Taxes = giving less fortunate ppl a chance of a decent life. I'm scared at the greed of people who care more about a 5% higher income, than other peoples well being. That kind of complete reluctance to help our fellow man is what's going to bring humanity to its end I believe.
|
On February 02 2011 19:27 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 16:43 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification. Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please? With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this: The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really) Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes). Acton is rational by definition. Action is an implication of preference, hence implies actor prefering the course taken to all other possible choices. The likely objection to this is an appeal to objective value or behaviorism, both of which are fallacies.
|
On February 02 2011 20:40 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 19:27 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 02 2011 16:43 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification. Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please? With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this: The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really) Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes). Acton is rational by definition. Action is an implication of preference, hence implies actor prefering the course taken to all other possible choices. The likely objection to this is an appeal to objective value or behaviorism, both of which are fallacies.
Not sure what you are trying to say? I think that "action is rational by definition" is bullshit. There is well-documented evidence of people acting against their own preferences. If you want to make the point that people do not act according to normative models of rationality such as homo economicus, then I agree, but that is basically what I was pointing out in my previous post.
|
On February 02 2011 19:27 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 16:43 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification. Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please? With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this: The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really) Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes).
I wasn't aware that the government was run by wizards. I thought they we're simple humans, mere mortals. Guide me wizard, I am yours to command. My simple human mind will only get in the way of my happiness. Oh wait, thats mine to pursue!
|
I would not pay the taxes if they were voluntary. I view taxes as a form of theft, and disagree wholeheartedly with the redistribution of income, but i believe low taxes are needed to fund the limited roles the ultraminimalist nightwatchmen state (read some nozick) should perform (protection against force, theft, fraud, and the enforcement of contracts).
|
On February 02 2011 21:24 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 19:27 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 02 2011 16:43 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification. Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please? With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this: The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really) Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes). I wasn't aware that the government was run by wizards. I thought they we're simple humans, mere mortals. Guide me wizard, I am yours to command. My simple human mind will only get in the way of my happiness. Oh wait, thats mine to pursue!
May I point out that your core argument is flawed? You suggest that the government equals people but you neglect that a government is more than that. It also incorporates legal structures and institutionalized guidelines for behavior. Due to that fact, ridiculing the effectiveness of government on the basis that a government needs people as one of its components is invalid.
It is the same as caliming that cars cannot go faster than humans just because humans drive them and they were made by humans.
|
On February 02 2011 17:30 shdymlkman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 09:10 Bibdy wrote:On February 02 2011 08:56 shdymlkman wrote:On February 02 2011 08:43 mcc wrote:On February 02 2011 08:25 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 08:24 acker wrote:On February 02 2011 08:19 Treemonkeys wrote:
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance. The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture. Then dispute what I have said. Where do US dollars come from? You are making too much fuss, so here : they are (as all other currencies in the world) printed/minted. So now that we have this trivial question answered was there a point ? The Fed can print money whenever it wants but if you try to do it, you are taken to jail. Since it is illegal to use currencies other than the state approved one, your debt enslavement is guaranteed. I am surprised at the amount of boot-licking and stockholm syndrome in this thread and even more surprised at how long Treemonkeys has tolerated it. You realize that by printing dollars, they LOWER the value of the dollar and that it gets tracked like a godamned hawk, right? Its not money that's just popping out of thin air, that they just hand to themselves and pay off the mortgage on their 17th mansion in the Bahamas. Sorry, I have this weird hangup about having the value of my money lowered by strangers at their whim. It's weird, I know. But as long as they're keeping track of how they destroy the dollar "like a hawk" it's okay. You know that it is impossible to create any useful currency that does not suffer from this problem.
|
On February 02 2011 18:29 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. I really don't see how the government handling the construction of public roads is even remotely similar to them planning out my retirement without my consent. Maybe thats just because I'm a retarded American who btw isn't really conservative. I have a romanticized view of Enlightenment thinking. Wtf ever happened to that in Europe? Have you even heard of that era? It's like that entire century was just deleted from history on your entire continent. The western world is falling because they removed their foundation. Yes we heard of that era, but unlike Americans with their 300-year-old-paper-worship , we moved on. There is no reason to be stuck 300 years in the past, take the good stuff, leave the bad. It is not like all problems were solved during Enlightenment. And I do not really think that all Americans suffer from Constitution-worship, I was just using your own style of baseless generalizations, as there are a lot of Europeans that do the same thing.
|
On February 02 2011 20:40 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 19:27 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 02 2011 16:43 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification. Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please? With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this: The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really) Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes). Acton is rational by definition. Action is an implication of preference, hence implies actor prefering the course taken to all other possible choices. The likely objection to this is an appeal to objective value or behaviorism, both of which are fallacies. That is only true if the actor is even aware of all other possible choices and if he is able to grasp consequences of those choices. If not, you can still cling to your statement, but then your definition becomes useless and simplistic. Action is assured to be rational only if the actor is rational, otherwise word rational loses its meaning.
|
On February 02 2011 22:48 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 20:40 xarthaz wrote:On February 02 2011 19:27 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 02 2011 16:43 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification. Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please? With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this: The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really) Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes). Acton is rational by definition. Action is an implication of preference, hence implies actor prefering the course taken to all other possible choices. The likely objection to this is an appeal to objective value or behaviorism, both of which are fallacies. That is only true if the actor is even aware of all other possible choices and if he is able to grasp consequences of those choices. If not, you can still cling to your statement, but then your definition becomes useless and simplistic. Action is assured to be rational only if the actor is rational, otherwise word rational loses its meaning. What DOES rational action mean to you? If it means the most suitable behavior for the achievement of preferred ends, then it is the same definition as action itself.
On February 02 2011 20:53 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 20:40 xarthaz wrote:On February 02 2011 19:27 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 02 2011 16:43 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification. Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please? With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this: The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really) Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes). Acton is rational by definition. Action is an implication of preference, hence implies actor prefering the course taken to all other possible choices. The likely objection to this is an appeal to objective value or behaviorism, both of which are fallacies. Not sure what you are trying to say? I think that "action is rational by definition" is bullshit. There is well-documented evidence of people acting against their own preferences. If you want to make the point that people do not act according to normative models of rationality such as homo economicus, then I agree, but that is basically what I was pointing out in my previous post. Observed action is just that, demonstrated preference. Therefore any claims of action counter to preference are meaningless, absurd statements.
|
On February 02 2011 20:40 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 19:27 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 02 2011 16:43 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification. Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please? With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this: The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really) Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes). Acton is rational by definition. Action is an implication of preference, hence implies actor prefering the course taken to all other possible choices. The likely objection to this is an appeal to objective value or behaviorism, both of which are fallacies.
You want irrational action? How about the 10000 people who stayed behind in New Orleans after being told they would likely die if they didn't leave because the town was going to be flooded. What's the rational basis for that?
The fact is, even though people aren't always rational actors, irrational decisions are inherently unpredictable. No system should be built around irrational choice, it just has to reward rational choice, punish irrational choice, and be immune to irrational tampering.
|
|
|
|